HOME/ABOUT  Prayer  SCOTUS  ProLife  BangList  Aliens  StatesRights  ConventionOfStates  WOT  HomosexualAgenda  GlobalWarming  Corruption  Taxes  Congress  Fraud  MediaBias  GovtAbuse  Tyranny  Obama  ObamaCare  Elections  Layoffs  NaturalBornCitizen  FastandFurious  OPSEC  Benghazi  Libya  IRS  Scandals  TalkRadio  TeaParty  FreeperBookClub  HTMLSandbox  FReeperEd  FReepathon  CopyrightList  Copyright/DMCA Notice  Donate

"HEY FREEPERS: Go Monthly and lets END these Freepathons!!!" ~~piytar

Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Free Republic 2nd Quarter Fundraising Target: $88,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $39,387
Woo hoo!! And the first 44% is in!! Thank you all very much!!

Posts by Mrs. Don-o

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • Peter and the Papacy

    05/03/2015 6:19:59 PM PDT · 317 of 321
    Mrs. Don-o to ealgeone
    Some Koine Greek female names are also participles. Like Amene, Hegumene, etc.

    See here, where it explains about the participle used substantively, and translated as a noun

  • Pope Francis praises Junipero Serra as U.S. 'founding father'

    05/03/2015 5:49:38 PM PDT · 73 of 92
    Mrs. Don-o to afraidfortherepublic; catfish1957; Salvation; SoCal Pubbie; ought-six
    All the men who organized missions were called "fundadores" (founders) -- so Serra was legitimately a Founding Father of California.

    The fact that he financially supported George Washington and American Independence earns him an honorary place with the American Founding Fathers as well, in my humble opinion.

  • 1177 BCE, the year a perfect storm destroyed civilization

    05/03/2015 5:17:35 PM PDT · 63 of 109
    Mrs. Don-o to 2ndDivisionVet

    Can’t read the article without registering. :o(

  • Peter and the Papacy

    05/03/2015 4:43:03 PM PDT · 313 of 321
    Mrs. Don-o to BipolarBob
    Here we are at #312 or so, and you seem to have missed the fact we're in agreement that the "keys" were symbolic: there were not actual, physical sets of keys. That's what we were agreeing on in #230

    That was 80+ volleys ago. It does get...long.

    OK, so we've long been in agreement that these were not physical keys. What I was disputing was this assertion of yours:

    "Rev. 21:12 tells us that Heaven has twelve gates. Whoa!! You don't suppose all twelve Apostles were given keys, do you? Rev. 21:14 says yes..."

    ...when in fact there is nothing in the Book of Revelation at all about the Twelve Apostles having keys.


  • Pope Francis praises Junipero Serra as U.S. 'founding father'

    05/03/2015 4:27:52 PM PDT · 51 of 92
    Mrs. Don-o to mad_as_he$$
    Here's what I'd written n Serra's defense a couple of months ago:


    And to put this in perspective: the forces that wanted to get rid of Serra in his lifetime, were the hacienda owners who wanted the native Californians for serfs, and the soldiers at the presidios who wanted the women for undignified, coerced sexual slavery.

    Serra fought hard to counter the overwhelming political power of the hacendados and the Spanish military. He had only a very few choices of how to do that.

    Serra and his friars are today criticized for being "paternalistic" toward the Indians, and indeed they were: these were rough times, but they were as fathers to them --- in contrast to the hacendados and soldados, who were to them as wolves.

    Serra was in conflict with with three successive governors, Pedro Fages, Fernando Rivera y Moncada, and Felipe de Neve. And only a few decades after Serra's death, the Spanish power-brokers got their way, the missions were taken away from the Franciscans, and the Indians reduced to prostitutes and serfs on the haciendas.

    I still stand by my conclusion that "If we were in the exact same situation, with the same range of options, we would have done nobly indeed to do as Serra did."

  • Pope Francis praises Junipero Serra as U.S. 'founding father'

    05/03/2015 3:16:37 PM PDT · 37 of 92
    Mrs. Don-o to ought-six

    OK, why? Related to this upcoming canonization?

  • Pope Francis praises Junipero Serra as U.S. 'founding father'

    05/03/2015 3:10:04 PM PDT · 31 of 92
    Mrs. Don-o to ought-six

    Which man?

  • A Crisis in the German Church? Synod Questionnaire Would Suggest So

    05/03/2015 2:23:16 PM PDT · 4 of 5
    Mrs. Don-o to LibFreeUSA

    Divorce is no bar to Communion. What are you talking about?

  • Peter and the Papacy

    05/03/2015 2:11:36 PM PDT · 308 of 321
    Mrs. Don-o to BipolarBob
    I looked and found out that the word "key" o "keys" is used just 4 times in Revelation, and in none of those is there any reference to 12 keys going to the Twelve.

    Maybe in some other Book?

  • Peter and the Papacy

    05/03/2015 2:05:52 PM PDT · 307 of 321
    Mrs. Don-o to BipolarBob
    Thanks for the chapter and verse. I looked up the links to Revelation 21:14, and here's what I found: 12 names, 12 gates, 12 foundation stones. Nothing about keys.

    If you want to send a better chap/verse, I'll gladly check it out.

  • Pope Francis praises Junipero Serra as U.S. 'founding father'

    05/03/2015 1:56:04 PM PDT · 11 of 92
    Mrs. Don-o to The_Reader_David

    St. Herman of Alaska! Axios!

  • Peter and the Papacy

    05/03/2015 1:51:24 PM PDT · 305 of 321
    Mrs. Don-o to Elsie
    No, actually, Greek grammar limits this to Simon Peter. Did you go to the Strong's Concordance link?


    Click on the live link 4671, and that takes you to:


    Dative, second person, singular.

    I am open to correction based on the Greek grammar.

  • Peter and the Papacy

    05/03/2015 12:21:58 PM PDT · 301 of 321
    Mrs. Don-o to BipolarBob
    About Matthew 16:19 --- the verse about the Keys of the Kingdom...

    According to Strong's Concordance, that word "unto thee" (#04671) is a dative case, 2nd person singular (LINK).

    Therefore the "Keys" were not given to the disciples in general; they were given to the person Jesus was speaking to, Peter, in virtue of the office he had just received from Jesus.

  • Peter and the Papacy

    05/03/2015 12:04:56 PM PDT · 299 of 321
    Mrs. Don-o to Iscool
    "..Yet no one speaks of apostle Paul succession of bishops..."

    Not so. It's right there in the New Testament. Timothy and Titus were successors ordained by Paul. Ignatius of Antioch, a couple of decades later, is recognized as a successor of Paul, and Antioch has had bishop/patriarch successors continuously from then until now. The latest of the Orthodox successors in John X, who became Patriarch of Antioch in 2013.

  • Peter and the Papacy

    05/03/2015 11:55:51 AM PDT · 298 of 321
    Mrs. Don-o to ealgeone
    But you didn't "correct" me on Chaire, Kecharitomene, you gave me your opinion.

    Similarly, I gave you my opinion; but mine was better founded. I said that "Chaire" (Hail) is used before either a name or a title; in English this name or title would usually be capitalized.

    If you look up "Chaire" in a Bible Concordance (LINK) you'll see it's used 5 times in the NT, and each and every time it comes before a title: Rabbi, Master, King, King of the Jews, and Kecharitomene

    Now turn your attention to this title "Kecharitomene." You'll find that this word is absolutely unique. It is used only once, to address Mary of Nazareth. The root word, "charitoo" (grace) is probably used hundreds of times in various combinations, but this form, "Kecharitomene," is not used at any other point in the NT ~or~ in the OT (for instance in the LXX Greek translation) ~or~ in any example of secular Greek literature.

    That's why I was so painstaking about parsing the grammatical indicators.

    The phrase "full of grace" (in English) is used, as I explained, of three NT persons (Stephen, Mary, and Jesus) and yet different terms are used in Greek in all three cases. A distinction is being made --- as one would expect, since they are related, but not equal or identical.

    So I think my opinion of "Chaire Kecharitomene" is well-founded; and (so far!) neither you nor anybody else has yet been able to fault the grammatical analysis.

    But perhaps you can do better with the grammar. I'm here to learn.

  • Peter and the Papacy

    05/03/2015 10:47:57 AM PDT · 296 of 321
    Mrs. Don-o to Iscool
    "And what brethren was Peter told to strengthen??? The Jewish brethren."

    In "Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible" (and Gill was not a Catholic, but an 18th century English Baptist pastor) he says that Jesus' commission to Peter to "confirm" the brethren was carried out in at least three ways: in Peter's gathering of all the disciples who had fled in one direction and another at Christ's crucifixion; in Peter's marvelous inauguration of the pubic preaching on Pentecost; and in Peter's leaving "two exceeding useful epistles for the strengthening of his brethren in all ages of time."

    The text does not limit Peter to strengthening the Jewish brethren only; and apparently Gill sees no reason to do so.

    I personally like the fact that he first strengthened his "brethren," the other Apostles who had fled. They also were Jews, of course; more importantly, they were Jesus' select men, the leaders of His Church. It is they whom Peter strengthens.

  • Peter and the Papacy

    05/03/2015 10:22:41 AM PDT · 295 of 321
    Mrs. Don-o to rwa265
    A St. Joseph Rosary! I never heard of that!

    I just learned that my dear Mother's descriptive nickname or an honest, stalwart guy ("a good Joe") is actually a stock phrase from a couple of centuries ago. That's how I think of St. Joseph.

  • Peter and the Papacy

    05/03/2015 10:13:39 AM PDT · 294 of 321
    Mrs. Don-o to ealgeone; Iscool
    Sorry for the inaccurate verse about "an angel" announcing Jesus' resurrection to St. Peter first.

    It's accurate to say that of the Twelve, Jesus appeared to St. Peter first. St. Paul tells us:

    1 Cor 4:8-14
    He [Jesus] was buried,
    and He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,
    and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the Twelve.
    After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep;
    then He appeared to James,
    then to all the apostles;
    and last of all, as to one untimely born,
    He appeared to me also.

    Another example of the pattern of prominence of Peter (Cephas).

  • Peter and the Papacy

    05/03/2015 9:40:53 AM PDT · 292 of 321
    Mrs. Don-o to ealgeone
    Good catch on erroneous item I passed on about Jesus appearing to Peter first. In fact Jesus appeared to Mary Magdalen first. Peter was the first Apostle He appeared to. I don't recall that you corrected me on this before. This is the only thread in which I mischanced to use that inaccurate verse (which I cut-and-pasted from the original article at the top of this thread.) It's a good lesson to me not to cut-and-paste anything I haven't verified.

    Thank you for correcting my error.

  • Colorado company refuses service to 'colored people' in 'Mount Ghetto'

    05/03/2015 4:30:49 AM PDT · 144 of 157
    Mrs. Don-o to Lazamataz
    I'm very sorry, Laz m'luv, but I am wedded to Don-o until I die or he dies, or the Lord comes again, whichever comes first. He's my ONLY.

    So you'n'me getting married is off the table.

    You want to go steady?

  • Peter and the Papacy

    05/02/2015 7:13:36 PM PDT · 264 of 321
    Mrs. Don-o to Iscool
    Iscool, I want to thank you for writing me a 955 word essay and for the multiple questions you want me to answer.

    Mrs Don-o: Whenever the Apostles were listed, Peter's name was at the top of the list
    Iscool: Are you, like your church leadership a purveyor of false information???

    Please do not automatically default into the accusatory mode (“false information”). You misconstrued what I said.

    I said every the Apostles are listed, not every time any of them is mentioned. There are only four listings of the Twelve Apostles in the New Testament (Mark 3:13-19, Matthew 10:1-4, Luke 6:12-16, and Acts 1:13), and in every one of them, Peter is listed first.

    Mrs Don-o: Peter spoke for the rest (Matt. 18:21, Mark 8:29, Luke 12:41, John 6:68-69), This prominence is not the exception, but the rule.
    Iscool: That certainly doesn't mean he spoke for anyone other than himself.

    “Certainly”? On the contrary, in each of these three accounts by Matthew, Mark, and John, Jesus is explicitly asking the disciples (plural) what did they (plural) say, and when no other Apostle speaks up, Peter answers in all three accounts. They are evidently satisfied to let Peter speak for them, because nobody adds to or contradicts what Peter said. And each time it is THE key statement of faith: “You are the Messiah!” and “We (plural) have come to believe and know that You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

    ”Those disciples followed Jesus, not Peter...”

    False dichotomy. Of course the disciples followed Jesus: they also followed the Apostles who followed Jesus; and they followed Peter,who followed Jesus, and whom Jesus had appointed Chief Shepherd, with a solemn, threefold commission.

    ”All this proves is Peter was faltering while Jesus was trying to get Peter to admit that he loved Jesus...”

    “Trying to get him to admit”?? Fer cryin’ out loud… Peter came right out and SAID he loved Jesus, three times. Jesus asks “Do you love Me more than these?” More than these” implies a comparison. What Jesus is telling Peter, who loves Him “more than these”, is that He’s giving him the commission of Chief Shepherd, which he will assume in practice on earth after Jesus ascends into heaven.

    "Obviously Jesus didn't have that problem with give the Head Shepherd ministry to the other disciples... As one can easily see, all the apostles and overseers were sanctioned to feed Jesus' sheep..."

    ...which they did with the guidance and confirmation of Peter, who was singled out and told to “confirm the brethren.” (Luke 22:32)

    ”None of the apostles strengthened the brethren more than the apostle Paul.”

    Paul had unmatched prominence as a writer. He wrote 14 of the 27 books of the New Testament (if you count Hebrews), and the last half of Acts is all about him too.

    Jesus never said that Peter, with his 2 short Epistles, would be a great writer. And so what? Jesus Himself didn’t write anything at all! All we can say of Peter is what Jesus said, that he is “Rock,” that he has the “Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven,” that he was called out by name and given the explicit role of “confirming the brethren” and “feeding the sheep.”

    Both Peter and Paul demonstrated the Lord’s approval spectacularly with miracles --- Peter even raising a girl from the dead --- and the people were so impressed that they wanted Paul to touch their handkerchief and aprons so they could take them back to the sick and obtain a healing; and people wanted just to get Peter’s shadow to fall on the sick, that they might be healed. Peter and Paul are co-workers, not rivals; both of them realize that the miracles come from Christ and not from their own power or piety.

    Did any one praise Peter???

    No. All of them, including Peter, realized that this miracle came from God.

    Did anyone canonize Peter???

    Category error. People aren’t canonized until they’re proclaimed to be in heaven. That’s what “canonization” means.

    "...to Peter was sent an angel to proclaim Christ's rising from the dead (Mark 16:7) More disinformation...Why do you do that???"

    Sorry, my mistake. That is an error (not “disinformation”, which implies dishonesty) -- and it comes from reading three different texts at the same time and mixing up my references.

    Jesus appeared first to Mary Magdalen. Then in Luke 23, Jesus appears to the men on the road to Emmaus. Then, when they run back to Jerusalem to deliver this amazing news, they “ found the eleven and those who were with them gathered together, saying, “The Lord is risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon!”

    So Simon (Peter) was the first Apostle to whom Jesus appeared after His resurrection.

    "...and he received the first converts (Acts 2:41) Really??? Since when is Peter a 'them'???"

    Iscool, if you will kindly read the whole of Acts 2, you will see that what is quoted is Peter’s robust first street-preaching to the people of Jerusalem. It goes on to say,

    “Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?”

    Then Peter said to them, (BTW, again speaking for “the rest of the apostles”), “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

    "And with many other words he (singular, Peter)_ testified and exhorted them, saying, “Be saved from this perverse generation.” Then those who gladly received his (singular, Peter’s) word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them."

    Of course they were not just added “to Peter,” they were added “to them,” Christ’s Church. For which Peter was, in chapter 2, the obvious principal spokesman.

    "Peter inflicted the first punishment (Acts 5:1-11)? Peter may have been the first one to be revealed..."

    Did you actually READ this, Iscool? The whole thing happens right in from to Peter’s face and in response to Peter’s words. It says “immediately she fell down at his feet and breathed her last.” At Peter’s feet.

    I would like to amend what I said, however, to eliminate my word “inflicted” (above.) There is nothing here that says Peter killed them. It just says that they collapsed at Peter’s feet and breathed their last.

    "Peter excommunicated the first heretic (Acts 8:18-23)? Same thing..."

    Same...Did you actually READ this, Iscool? There are only two people talking in Acts 8:14-24---- Simon Magus, and Peter. Peter tells Simon Magus, “You have neither part nor portion in this matter” because Simon Magus’ ”heart was “not right in the sight of the Lord.”

    It couldn’t be any plainer than that. Simon Magus is to have 'no part' with them. What do you want: “Bell, Book and Candle”?

    Mrs. Don-o: "Of all the Apostles who later participated in the first council in Jerusalem (Acts 15), it was Peter alone who received the miraculous message from Heaven that Gentiles were to be received into the Church (Acts 10:46-48).
    Iscool: Probably because Peter was the hardest one to convince...

    What I see on your part is a pattern of resenting, minimizing and “explaining away” all the great things Christ had done through Peter. Every marvel and sign is greeted by the equivalent of “Oh, that’s not so great.”

    So here's my 1,200+ words. It went long because I had to quote so much from the last two volleys, for the questions to make sense. I'm nouned out and verbed out.

    It's now 10:08 PM and I need to get ready for bed. I will get to your other questions if I get a chance.

    God bless you. ZZZzzzzzz.....

  • Colorado company refuses service to 'colored people' in 'Mount Ghetto'

    05/02/2015 4:05:46 PM PDT · 134 of 157
    Mrs. Don-o to CatherineofAragon
    Thank you for the big hug, and here's one right back at'cha.

    I am recovering pretty well, except I spend too much time sitting on my butt.

    I'm blaming Free Republic :o)

  • Peter and the Papacy

    05/02/2015 3:59:20 PM PDT · 230 of 321
    Mrs. Don-o to BipolarBob
    When I said "I can't help it," I meant I can't improve on what Jesus said, so I just have to repeat it. He said "Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven." That's what we have to work with here.

    "Why did Jesus give Peter the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven?"

    To indicate that he would have authority in the Kingdom of God to open and shut the door.

    What are these keys exactly?"

    A reference to the foreshadowing found in Isaiah. You might want to re-read the Isaiah 22 reference.

    "I will clothe him with your robe,
    gird him with your sash,
    confer on him your authority.
    He shall be a father
    to the inhabitants of Jerusalem,
    and to the house of Judah.
    I will place the key of the House of David on his shoulder;
    what he opens, no one will shut,
    what he shuts, no one will open."

    "Are they gold?"

    No. They are not a physical set of keys.

    "Are there more than one set?

    They are not a physical set of keys. There are no doubt different kinds and degrees of authority.

    "Is Peter the only person Jesus gave these keys to?"

    If you're talking about different kinds and degrees of authority, God has appointed a number of people to positions of service and authority. As you no doubt know, Paul said it is God who makes these special appointments:

    1 Cor. 12:28-29
    And God has appointed in the church,
    first apostles,
    second prophets,... (etc. etc.)
    I know you know this, because I quoted it to you just six hours ago. Perhaps you'll benefit from re-reading it:


    So there are different kind of leadership. With respect to the "Power of the Keys," though, in Matthew 16:19, Jesus is specifically addressing Peter. That was given to Peter and to his successors. Various kinds of specialization, localization and delegation have emerged over the centuries, which is inevitable when the number of believers and local churches gets larger and larger.

    For instance, St. Athanasius (his feast day is today) said in his letter Ad Afros, that there were 318 bishops at the Council of Nicaea in 325 that would be just 275 years after the Council of Jerusalem. The successor of Peter--- Pope Sylvester himself --- did not personally attend; instead, he sent two legates.

    So you could say the "Power of the Keys" has a larger, ecclesial implication. It does not signify only a solo, lone-ranger sovereignty.

  • Peter and the Papacy

    05/02/2015 3:16:56 PM PDT · 226 of 321
    Mrs. Don-o to BipolarBob
    That's one of the things I like about Peter. In some ways he's a kind of a big lunk: ardent, impulsive, quite a lion after Pentecost, and yet a mouse, intimidated by a mere serving-girl in the courtyard at the time of Jesus' trial. Blustering ("I don't even @$@# KNOW the man!"), often not knowing what to do but feeling he has to do something ("I'm going fishing!"), disarmingly open about his limitations ("Some of those Scriptures by Brother Paul are kinda hard to understand sometimes") --- and one of the very first things he said to Jesus was, "Lord, depart from me, for I am a sinful man."

    He understood everything and nothing. He knew Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the Living God. But he didn't see why He should have to suffer. Jesus called him "Rock," called him "Satan" (Adversary), and called him three times to be the chief shepherd of the sheep after Jesus would ascend into heaven.

    There's so much there for all of us to relate to.

    Here's a picture of a guy fishing on the Sea of Galilee. I think Peter looked like that.

  • Peter and the Papacy

    05/02/2015 2:56:02 PM PDT · 221 of 321
    Mrs. Don-o to RnMomof7

    True! I have no problem with that :o)

  • Peter and the Papacy

    05/02/2015 2:55:07 PM PDT · 220 of 321
    Mrs. Don-o to metmom
    You are quite right, metmom, when you say that the word "grace" in English doesn't tell us quite as much as the different forms of the word in Greek, which has a far more sophisticated grammar and can use its terms with distinctly different senses.

    Thank you or your attention to this fact.

    (If I am repeating something I said before, please forgive me. I don't always read everything on the thread, and I assume that must be true for others as well. I'd never get outside into the beautiful May air if I did that!)

    (Stick your head out the door and look at those Irises!)

    This is how I understand it. Although the same or similar words, "full" or "filled" with grace, are used for three different people in the NT (Jesus, Mary, and the deacon Stephen), it does not mean exactly the same for all three. If it did, we'd be saying that the blessedness of Jesus, Mary, and Stephen are indistinguishable, identical -- which cannot be, as I'm sure you'll agree.

    How can they be distinguished, then?

    The Greek grammar shows how.

    Kecharitomene used in Luke to refer to Marym is a Greek perfect, passive, participle, which could literally be translated "having been graced," since the root of the word is "charis", which means grace.

    In contrast, Ephesians 1:6, where Paul refers to Jesus Christ, uses the aorist, active, indicative echaritosen, meaning "he graced."

    See the difference? Mary, passive voice, she received grace; Jesus, active voice, "He graced." This is due to the fact that Jesus is a Divine person; on a far lower scale, Mary is a human person, a creature and handmaid.

    In Luke 1:28 "Kecharitomene" is nominative or titular, since it follows the greeting "Chaire" ---"Hail [name or title] --- thus the name would ordinarily be capitalized in English translations, just as you would capitalize "Kate Middleton" or "Duchess of Windsor."

    "Kecharitomene" is who or what Mary IS.

    The unique feature of Kecharitomene is that it is in the Greek perfect tense, denoting that the state of grace began in past time, by a completed action (hence "fully" accomplished), whose results continue in the present. A suitable translation to denote all these features might be "Fully-Graced One." The Greek passive voice denotes that Mary received the title from an outside source, in this case, Almighty God.

    The New Testament uses the Greek "pleres charitos" ("full of grace") to describe Jesus (John 1:14) and Stephen (Acts 6:8), but these usages are not as specific to time, agent and continuity as Kecharitomene. Again, a feature of Greek grammar.

  • Peter and the Papacy

    05/02/2015 2:31:55 PM PDT · 217 of 321
    Mrs. Don-o to BipolarBob
    I can't help it, it's what Jesus said: "I give you the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven." Once again, we have to pay particular attention to what He actually said.

    In Matthew 16:19, Jesus is specifically addressing Peter. We see in the book of Acts, Peter leads in the “opening of doors” to three different groups of people so they can enter the Kingdom.

    • In Acts 2, it is Peter who preaches in Jerusalem on the Day of Pentecost; about three thousand Jewish people are saved that day. Peter’s preaching had “unlocked the door” of heaven for the Jews.
    • Later, in Acts 8, the Samaritans believe the gospel and receive the Holy Spirit; again, Peter (and John) was present for this event. Peter had “unlocked the door” for the Samaritans.
    • Then, in Acts 10, Peter brings the gospel to a Roman centurion’s household, and they, too, receive the Holy Spirit. Peter had “unlocked the door” for the Gentiles. The “keys” that Jesus had given him worked in each case<.

    When the Apostles organize the Council of Jerusalem to make an authoritative judgment concerning the Gentile question, it Peter to whom the Holy Spirit sends a special vision (the one with the large sheet being lowered to the ground.) Peter not only receives this vision individually, but interprets it correctly, and explains this to the others at the Council.

    This shows that different Apostles evidently had different roles--- James, the head of the Church in Jerusalem, convened the Council and formulated its decrees; Peter, who received the actual vision from Heaven, taught it and confirmed the brethren.

    So Peter was "opening a door" here. But the power of the Keys also includes the power to "shut" the door.

    That happened when Pete excommunicated that major troublemaker Simon Magus.

  • Colorado company refuses service to 'colored people' in 'Mount Ghetto'

    05/02/2015 2:30:08 PM PDT · 123 of 157
    Mrs. Don-o to Lazamataz; CatherineofAragon
    I haven't found the Freeper in question to be much worth my electrons one way or the other.

    I'm becoming more sparing with my electrons.

    I will say I enjoy you, Laz, and you, Catherine, a whole lot more!

  • Peter and the Papacy

    05/02/2015 1:21:28 PM PDT · 203 of 321
    Mrs. Don-o to metmom
    "If Mary received grace, it was because she was a sinner. Where sin abounds, grace does much more abound."

    Sin is not the only condition in which people obtain grace. Jesus is also described as being "full of grace" (John 1:14) and He did not sin. So your rule does not work with Mary OR Jesus. Besides, it is not credible to suggest that God's messenger called her "full of grace" in order to indicate that she was full of sin. Sheesh. "Where there is no sin, there is no grace because the person is getting what they deserve, not getting what they don't deserve. Grace is only operative when the person doesn't deserve what they are getting."

    Not so. Grace doesn't ONLY mean something unmerited. A beautiful Messianic Psalm 45:2-3 describes the Messiah (we know this is Jesus) as having had grace poured upon His lips:

    You are fairer than the sons of men;
    Grace is poured upon Your lips;
    Therefore God has blessed You forever.
    Gird Your sword upon Your thigh, O Mighty One,
    With Your glory and Your majesty.

    The Gospel of Luke speaks of the Child Jesus growing in grace:

    Luke 2:40
    "And the Child grew and became strong in spirit, filled with wisdom; and the grace of God was upon Him."

    You can't say the Messiah was graced because He had sinned!

    And look at Psalm 84:11

    "For the Lord God is a sun and shield;
    The Lord will give grace and glory;
    No good thing will He withhold
    From those who walk uprightly."
    Likewise Proverbs 3:34-- "Surely He scorns the scornful, But gives grace to the humble."

    These make no mention of the "sin" of the recipient of grace, but focus on the fact thew God will not withhold His grace from "those who walk uprightly" and "the humble."

    Happily take into account all of these passages, metmom, which will enrich your understanding of "grace."

  • Peter and the Papacy

    05/02/2015 11:42:10 AM PDT · 191 of 321
    Mrs. Don-o to Iscool
    "..Scripture obviously is meaningless to them..."

    Iscool, this kind of over-broad, globally-generalized insult is impertinent and tends to shut down the conversation. Be a little more discriminating, please.

  • Peter and the Papacy

    05/02/2015 11:39:11 AM PDT · 190 of 321
    Mrs. Don-o to BipolarBob
    Mrs Don-o: "This constitutes a pattern. And a pattern that doesn't fit anybody but Peter."
    BipolarBob: "It sure does."

    Why, thank you, Bipolar! This comes from evaluating the evidence, instead of just trying to explain it away.

    " And Jesus Himself said "He who is first shall be last"."

    And the last, first. And the the guys in the middle, di-si-do in place. :o)

    If all the last (the children, for example) come first, I suppose ALL us grown-us will be more or less level at the very back of the line :o)

    "I see nothing definitive about superiority over the other Apostles. Nothing. nada."

    It depends on what you mean by "superiority". I don't imagine Peter was the smartest or most intellectual. He was not the most well-trained in Jewish and Greek knowledge (Paul apparently scoops him on that.) I don't know that fishermen are inherently higher-up than tax collectors.

    All I know is that, according to Scripture, Peter is given, symbolically, "The Keys." The meaning of this is very well illustrated in Isaiah 22, where God says to Shebna, the unworthy "Master of the Palace," that He will cast him out from his office, and instead "summon my servant Eliakim, son of Hilkiah", giving him all the symbols of leadership:

    "I will clothe him with your robe,
    gird him with your sash,
    confer on him your authority.
    He shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem,
    and to the house of Judah.
    I will place the key of the House of David
    on his shoulder;
    what he opens, no one will shut,
    what he shuts, no one will open."

    Clearly the significance of the "keys" is to make someone the Master of the Palace (who stands in for the King in his absence) and and to give him authority.

    We don't know that Eliakim, son of Hilkiah, was an innately "superior" man, no more than Simon (Peter) son of Jonah was: we do know he was given a position by God.

    "Does your faith require ... Mary to be sinless (even though that goes contrary to Scripture)?"

    Here's your Scripture on Mary: Kecharitomene." Read it carefully. I rest my case.

    By the way, It's not un-Scriptural. Not only do we have the Angelic Salutation, we also have the realization that in Biblical language,words like "all" and "none" and so forth, often don't mean to indicate exceptionless absolutes, but rather to indicate the general run of things.

    For instance, Scripture says "No one has ever seen God," but it also says, "Moses and Aaron saw the God of Israel."

    Scripture says "No man is just, not even one", yet it also calls Noah, Joseph of Nazareth, and even John the Baptist, "Just men."

    Scripture says "All men have sinned," and also calls Mary "Kecharitomene" (full of grace, not full of sin!)

    "Does your faith require the RCC to be the One True Church?"

    Depends on what you mean. The conciliar document Lumen Gentium says that "the Church of Christ... subsists in the Catholic Church." It doesn't say "IS" in a total, mathematically-closed-set, exclusive sense.

    This is because the Catholic Church also teaches that we [can], according to Catholic doctrine, affirm correctly that the Church of Christ is present and operative in the churches and ecclesial communities not yet fully in communion with the Catholic Church, on account of the elements of sanctification and truth that are present in them."

    What are these "elements of sanctification and truth"? That's dealt with explicitly in the Catechism (para. 825): "The elements of sanctification found also outside the visible confines of the Church are: (1) the Bible, (2) the life of grace, (3) Faith, (4) hope, (5) charity, (6) other interior gifts of the Spirit, (7) and visible elements."

    I think that this can contribute to a more accurate nderstanding.

  • Peter and the Papacy

    05/02/2015 10:19:42 AM PDT · 182 of 321
    Mrs. Don-o to ealgeone; BipolarBob; Cletus.D.Yokel; NYer
    "Who was the first disciple of Christ?"

    Easy one: His Mom.

  • Peter and the Papacy

    05/02/2015 10:18:13 AM PDT · 181 of 321
    Mrs. Don-o to Cletus.D.Yokel; BipolarBob
    "So, I assume ^you^ (like Paul) can get an audience with “Il Papa” to tell him he MUST recant his public statements regarding certain ^political touchstones^ (that would be today’s definition of a “judaizer”) since such statements are seen as dogma and certainly misleading to the Faithful?"

    I don't have the airfare to Rome. But somebody certainly could (and should). The whole purpose of these Synod meetings is to get input and feedback from "the brethren".

    As you must know from Catholic history, there are instances where laypeople, (e.g. Francis of Assisi), even women (e.g. Catherine of Siena) as well as clerics (Bonaventure and Dominic) have to offer the pope some frank feedback to get him back on the right track.

    "Things such as such as US immigration policy, the US DoMA and so-called homosexual love? Certainly just a small sample."

    On DoMA (Defense of Marriage act) and "so-called homosexual love,", Pope Francis is already very much on the record in line with Catholic teaching. Here's some links with clicking through. It'll only take you a couple of seconds:

    Pope Francis criticizes gay marriage, backs ban on contraception

    Pope Francis suggests gay marriage threatens traditional families

    Pope, in Philippines, says same-sex marriage threatens family

    Amid U.S. Gay Marriage Debate, Pope Affirms 'Traditional' Marriage Stance

    Pope Francis Shocks Liberals on Same-Sex “Marriage”

    As for U.S. Immigration Policy, my understanding is that he hasn't singled out the U.S. as such, but has talked more about the obligation of the whole community of nations. Here's a good quote to ponder:

    What did Pope Francis actually say on the crisis on the U.S.-Mexican border?

    "I would also like to draw attention to the tens of thousands of children who migrate alone, unaccompanied, to escape poverty and violence: This is a category of migrants from Central America and Mexico itself who cross the border with the United States under extreme conditions and in pursuit of a hope that in most cases turns out to be vain. They are increasing day by day.

    "This humanitarian emergency requires, as a first urgent measure, these children be welcomed and protected. These measures, however, will not be sufficient, unless they are accompanied by

    • policies that inform people about the dangers of such a journey and, above all, that
    • promote development in their countries of origin.
    • Finally, this challenge demands the attention of the entire international community so that new forms of legal and secure migration may be adopted."

    So there you've got first, compassionate protection for children traveling alone; realizing that won't be enough unless you discourage them from taking this dangerous journey in the first place, promoting development in their home countries so they won't be driven to emigrate; and involving the international community so it doesn't all fall on the "front-line" states (like the USA in the Americas, or Italy in the Mediterranean.)

    I think these are sensible remarks to the world's diplomatic community, ones which can be debated: certainly not dogma.

    Anyone who confuses diplomacy and debate with dogma knows rather little about Catholicism.

    "Might I inquire as to why the CoC has not done that very same thing?"

    WMight I inquire as to who is this "CoC"? Council of Churches? Chamber of Commerce? College of Cardinals? Chain of Command?

  • Peter and the Papacy

    05/02/2015 9:15:49 AM PDT · 175 of 321
    Mrs. Don-o to BipolarBob; Cletus.D.Yokel; NYer
    "Tell me about the vote on that. Show me in the Bible where it states the Apostles were not equal. One had greater powers than the others."

    Good questions. Let's look at Scripture about that.

    As you no doubt know, Paul said it is God who makes these special appointments:

    1 Cor. 12:28-29
    And God has appointed in the church,
    first apostles,
    second prophets,
    third teachers,
    then miracles,
    then gifts of healings,
    various kinds of tongues.
    All are not apostles, are they?
    All are not prophets, are they?
    All are not teachers, are they?
    All are not workers of miracles, are they?

    This clearly explains that while all souls are equal in the sight of God, nevertheless some people are placed in special positions by the authority of God.

    "Hoo boy! Since when was he [Peter]the leader? Tell me about the vote on that."

    Let's look to Scripture for that answer, as well.

    There was no vote (where is it written that the Church is to be a democracy?): it was an appointment.

    Peter’s foundational position was taught at the very beginning of his relationship with Christ. At their first meeting, Christ told Simon that his name would thereafter be Peter, Kephas/Cephas ("Rock" )(John 1:42). It wasn't just a casual nickname, like Boanerges; he was actually called Kephas/Cephas after that point.

    • Whenever the Apostles were listed, Peter's name was at the top of the list (Matt. 10:1-4, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:14-16, Acts 1:13); sometimes, the other apostles aren't listed individually at all, but are referred to as "Peter and those who were with him" (Luke 9:32). Peter spoke for the rest (Matt. 18:21, Mark 8:29, Luke 12:41, John 6:68-69), This prominence is not the exception, but the rule. Not occasional, but more thematic:
      • Peter is given Christ’s flock to shepherd in a solemn manner (3 times)corresponding also to being thrice-forgiven for his denials of the Lord (John 21:17)
      • Peter is to strengthen and confirm the rest ("the brethren") (Luke 22:32)
      • Peter first preached to the crowds on Pentecost(Acts 2:14-40), Peter worked the first miracle after Jesus ascended into heaven (Acts 3:6-7)
      • to Peter was sent an angel to proclaim Christ's rising from the dead (Mark 16:7),
      • Peter was the first one the risen Christ appeared to (Luke 24:34); Peter resided at the meeting that chose Matthias, first of the many successors of the Apostles(Acts 1:13-26)
      • and he received the first converts (Acts 2:41).
      • Peter inflicted the first punishment (Acts 5:1-11)
      • Peter excommunicated the first heretic (Acts 8:18-23).
      • of all the Apostles who later participated in the first council in Jerusalem (Acts 15), it was Peter alone who received the miraculous message from Heaven that Gentiles were to be received into the Church (Acts 10:46-48).

    This constitutes a pattern. And a pattern that doesn't fit anybody but Peter.

  • Peter and the Papacy

    05/02/2015 7:23:04 AM PDT · 156 of 321
    Mrs. Don-o to Cletus.D.Yokel; NYer
    Paul chastised Peter to his face because Peter's behavior was cowardly and wrong. He was succumbing to he desire to be popular and approved by the Judaizers.

    Notice hat he was not wrong in dogma (which would be a formal definition of doctrine misleading of the faithful.) He was wrong in his personal behavior.

    This isn't in contradiction to Peter being leader of the Apostolic band, None of our God-appointed leaders are "impeccable" (without sin.) That has never been claimed.

    What is claimed, is that the Holy Church will be protected from the faulty behavior or erroneous opinions of popes: they will be unable to lead the whole Church into error by making an erroneous dogmatic pronouncement on faith and morals.

    This protection which the CHURCH receives, in being protected from papal error, is called "infallibility." It is not a personal characteristic of the pope. It is a gift to the Church.

    So now you know!

  • If the Supreme Court Imposes Same Sex Marriage, You Could Lose Your Church

    05/02/2015 5:00:15 AM PDT · 23 of 23
    Mrs. Don-o to hapnHal; markomalley
    Here's what Politifact had to say about it in 2013.

    Muslims are exempt from the health care law. Pants on Fire.

    Chain email, May 29, 2013

    A widely circulated chain email claims that the word "dhimmitude" is on page 107 of the health care law, and it means Muslims will be exempt. Actually, the health care law does not include the word "dhimmitude" (a recently coined word that seems to refer to non-Muslims under Muslim rule). Also, the health care law doesn’t exempt Muslims. There is a "religious conscience exemption,'' but it applies to groups that disavow all forms of insurance, including Social Security. Muslim groups have supported the Affordable Care Act. We rated the chain email’s claim Pants on Fire.

  • Uptown Funk: Why White People Have a Right to Be Angry at the Race-Baiting Press

    05/02/2015 4:55:54 AM PDT · 20 of 33
    Mrs. Don-o to dangus


  • If the Supreme Court Imposes Same Sex Marriage, You Could Lose Your Church

    05/02/2015 4:45:26 AM PDT · 22 of 23
    Mrs. Don-o to hapnHal

    Thanks, I’ll look it up.

  • Former Soviet spy: We created Liberation Theology

    05/01/2015 5:50:55 PM PDT · 32 of 44
    Mrs. Don-o to NYer


  • If the Supreme Court Imposes Same Sex Marriage, You Could Lose Your Church

    05/01/2015 5:48:13 PM PDT · 8 of 23
    Mrs. Don-o to markomalley


  • If the Supreme Court Imposes Same Sex Marriage, You Could Lose Your Church

    05/01/2015 5:46:22 PM PDT · 7 of 23
    Mrs. Don-o to hapnHal
    I remember reading a year or two ago that there were provisions in Obamacare that "might" be used to exempt Muslims, but I never saw that confirmed in practice.

    Can you provide me with a link that documents that Muslims (all of them, or certain subsets of them) are in fact exempt?

  • Law professors take up Purvi Patel feticide appeal for free

    05/01/2015 11:06:48 AM PDT · 3 of 3
    Mrs. Don-o to Citizen Zed
  • Jesus Wants an Ethical Minimum Wage and a Serious Campaign Against Poverty

    05/01/2015 10:26:32 AM PDT · 21 of 53
    Mrs. Don-o to boomop1; Oldeconomybuyer; I want the USA back
    2 Thessalonians 3:10
    In fact, when we were with you, we instructed you that if anyone was unwilling to work, neither should that one eat.

    That was Paul, not Jesus.

  • Peter Foster: Vatican becomes an arm of godless United Nations with climate statement

    05/01/2015 7:25:57 AM PDT · 13 of 13
    Mrs. Don-o to Wyrd bið ful aræd; 9thLife; Arm_Bears
    "Anybody who disagrees is an apostate, destined for damnation."

    Anyone who thinks that,Catholic or not, is a fool cubed.

    The encyclical in question will not be published for at least a month yet (last winter they were saying March, yesterday they were saying June, but this article says September? Interesting...) Shrewd guesses aside, why is everybody so sure they know what's in a document that nobody has seen?

    Over the next 6 weeks or so, you can expect a multiplication of this kind of drum-beating, tendentious "pre-coverage coverage".

    No matter what the Pope says, it'll rarely break through all the elaborately constructed "framing."

    My #1 prediction: Pope Francis makes a big case for natural sex/gender and natural marriage, natural procreation and the natural family as part of a wider respect for God's natural creation.

    My #2 prediction: Nobody in the EneMedia will mention much of Pope Francis' defense of natural sex/gender. Nor will they make the salient point that the Pope has no authority to make magisterial statements about "climate change." Geophysical science is outside of his competence.

    My #3 prediction: you won't be able to separate "what he said" from "what they said he said" unless you read the whole thing in Spanish or Italian (or whatever language he's writing it in) and do your own translation.

    Frankly, by the time it gets into English, I won't trust the page numbers unless I count them myself.

    Remember, folks, you read it here first at Free Republic!

  • Police kill woman who fired at them from inside patrol car (Atlanta)

    05/01/2015 4:59:35 AM PDT · 53 of 58
    Mrs. Don-o to gatorhead; dynachrome

    "Both officers are black, as was the woman, Lyon said. The officers are on administrative leave while the investigation continues, he said."

  • Chuck Schumer invokes Pope Francis to rally support in fight against GOP

    05/01/2015 4:44:04 AM PDT · 22 of 25
    Mrs. Don-o to HiTech RedNeck

    I agree.

  • Chuck Schumer invokes Pope Francis to rally support in fight against GOP

    04/30/2015 6:38:53 PM PDT · 18 of 25
    Mrs. Don-o to HiTech RedNeck
    This is a good point, HiTech.

    And pay and working conditions are not the same in Pakistan and Dubai as they are in Pennsylvania and Delaware.

  • Chuck Schumer invokes Pope Francis to rally support in fight against GOP

    04/30/2015 6:34:43 PM PDT · 17 of 25
    Mrs. Don-o to eeriegeno

    The priesthood has nothing to do with pay disparity. Sheesh.

  • American Jacobins: Sexual Revolutionaries Prepare the Battlespace for a De-Christianized America

    04/30/2015 6:32:38 PM PDT · 44 of 44
    Mrs. Don-o to 9thLife

    I’m pretty darn sure that all those things do not belong to Caesar. But I should not let myself become discouraged when I think of fighting for God’s cause on all fronts at once. I just have to trust Him and do whatever He puts into my hands to do.

  • Bruce Jenner Thinks Christ Accepts His Sex Change

    04/30/2015 6:29:38 PM PDT · 251 of 251
    Mrs. Don-o to CynicalBear

    Same thing back at’cha, dear CynicalBear, mutatis mutandis.